In Terry Deacons Book called Incomplete Nature he describes the limits of Science when it comes to "mind". In the beginning he states that science can describe many things but can't describe how and why humans understand concepts, ideas, mourn for a loved one, have desires. Science can't hold it's tiny cock to issues such as these. Philosophy has been dealing with these issues for a long time. What is a "self"http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-...0393049914

He states that human consciousness "a mind" like most other organisms and parts of organisms are a self creating process that comes about by having what he called constraints. He gives many examples and explains this in his book. Here is a speech describing the book http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nat...rom_Matter

Science with it's tiny religious like cock likes to claim that the scientific method can explain everything or most things about humans by looking into different parts of the body including the brain.

Imagine there was a scientist that knew every thing there was to know about how the brain works at that time in the process of eye sight, and knew everything about how the eye worked during eye sight up to current science. What if this scientist was color blind, will or can this scientist ever "know" what the color red is? I say FUCK NO. Experience/phenomenology can't be reduced to smaller physical parts.

If you believe this scientist can "KNOW" what the color red is then explain how.

To answer your one serious question, he cannot know what the color red is like to someone that is not color blind. But he can understand the differences between red and the other colors in the form of wavelengths. A scientist can understand that the different colors represent photons of varying energy levels.

What can the color blind philosopher say about the color red?

On to the prior rubbish you spouted... If your so against science why are to taking advantage of the internet and that electronic device which you are using to connect to it?
Perhaps if your so against science, you should tell us another way of finding out the truth about reality other than observing it.

(21-05-2013 03:49 AM)I and I Wrote: ......I decided to shit on science.

In Terry Deacons Book called Incomplete Nature he describes the limits of Science when it comes to "mind". In the beginning he states that science can describe many things but can't describe how and why humans understand concepts, ideas, mourn for a loved one, have desires. Science can't hold it's tiny cock to issues such as these. Philosophy has been dealing with these issues for a long time. What is a "self"http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-...0393049914

He states that human consciousness "a mind" like most other organisms and parts of organisms are a self creating process that comes about by having what he called constraints. He gives many examples and explains this in his book. Here is a speech describing the book http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nat...rom_Matter

Science with it's tiny religious like cock likes to claim that the scientific method can explain everything or most things about humans by looking into different parts of the body including the brain.

Imagine there was a scientist that knew every thing there was to know about how the brain works at that time in the process of eye sight, and knew everything about how the eye worked during eye sight up to current science. What if this scientist was color blind, will or can this scientist ever "know" what the color red is? I say FUCK NO. Experience/phenomenology can't be reduced to smaller physical parts.

If you believe this scientist can "KNOW" what the color red is then explain how.

To answer your one serious question, he cannot know what the color red is like to someone that is not color blind. But he can understand the differences between red and the other colors in the form of wavelengths.

On to the prior rubbish you spouted... If your so against science why are to taking advantage of the internet and that electronic device which you are using to connect to it?

Perhaps if your so against science, you should tell us another way of finding out the truth about reality other than observing it.

Modern science is less and less about observing, it's more about mathematical equations and observing those equations. Which is the same logic that religious peeps use, they use the bible as a representation of something they can't visibly see and never will see.

Scientists don't observe reality, reality is a phenomenological act and science hasn't dealt with that, even though philosophers have been dealing with that for hundreds of years. A philosopher asks what reality is a scientist operates on the assumption that he knows what reality exist.

The scientist in the example will know that wave lengths represent "red" like the word red does, but this is completely different than experiencing seeing red.

(21-05-2013 04:31 AM)I and I Wrote: Modern science is less and less about observing, it's more about mathematical equations and observing those equations. Which is the same logic that religious peeps use, they use the bible as a representation of something they can't visibly see and never will see.

Scientists don't observe reality, reality is a phenomenological act and science hasn't dealt with that, even though philosophers have been dealing with that for hundreds of years. A philosopher asks what reality is a scientist operates on the assumption that he knows what reality exist.

The scientist in the example will know that wave lengths represent "red" like the word red does, but this is completely different than experiencing seeing red.

Modern science is all about observing. Mathematics is used to make predictions and if the mathematics does not match what is observed then it must be fixed to agree with observations so that predictions can be made, or else it must be discarded. There in lies the key difference between religion ([1] and your apparent philosophy), and science. Equations (and beliefs) conform to the evidence of reality. Sure there are many scientists seeking answers by playing with maths (string theory), but we don't accept such things to reflect reality until they can be verified through prediction and experiment.

[1] I say this because there is evidence literally right under your nose, and all around you, that the scientific method works, yet you remain ignorant.

Any physicist worth his degree ponders reality, fascinating experiments run in interferometers (think double-slit experiment) show us that the universe is very counter-intuitive at it's most fundamental level.

We can't know things with absolute certainty, what we can do is hypothesize and observe. Science works. This computer I'm using to communicate with multiple individuals from across the globe works. Do you know why it works? Not just because a bunch of philosophers sat in their chairs pondering reality (although I wouldn't doubt pondering minds played a part), but because hypothesis were made and experiments were conducted. If we must put the question of reality aside for a moment to make progress then that is what will be done.

So what if the scientists wouldn't understand the experience of seeing red, I thought you wanted to dispense with subjectivity? Light is simply electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between (about) 350-700nM. red being the higher (lower energy) end of that visible spectrum. Surely speaking of the experience of red to any one person is useless.

What would the color blind philosopher have to say about the color red?

There is no claim that the scientific method can explain everything, but it is the best method to date for explaining phenomena. Yet here you are arguing against it, I'm assuming you have a better method?

By the way, your right, philosophy has been dealing with this for much longer than we have had the scientific method. So why don't you have the answers?

Yes, some adherents of science cannot see the benefit of philosophy and yes, that's unfortunate. But comparing philosophy to science is an apples and oranges affair. Each has its own place and it's own limitations.

Hey, Adenosis.

Quote:If your so against science why are to taking advantage of the internet and that electronic device which you are using to connect to it?

My interpretation is that he isn't against science, but what you said sparked something in me, so I'll speak for myself.

Talking about the limitations of science is not at all the same thing as being against science. That notion creates a dangerous "you're either with science, or you're against science" dichotomy.

I have, many times, spoken about the limitations of science but to say that I'm against it is preposterous.

I'm just asking that you be careful with that kind of thing.

Also, it's not about having a better way or not. Science is good at what it does. Other things are good at what they do. If anyone is suggesting that we just pick one, call it best and ignore everything else, then that person is being shortsighted.

I also acknowledge it's potential, unlike some people. To the above quote I say bullshit.

Yes, he certainly sounds like he's not against science. An atheist (assuming?) who equates science to religion? Either he's fond of religion compared to most of us or he's not awfully fond of science.

I and I Wrote:Keep discussing those mathematical formulas that "prove" that shabadaba boop bop holes exist in sheeby sheeby universe millions of light years away.
---Science with it's tiny religious like cock likes to claim that the scientific method can explain everything or most things about humans by looking into different parts of the body including the brain.
---
Modern science is less and less about observing, it's more about mathematical equations and observing those equations. Which is the same logic that religious peeps use, they use the bible as a representation of something they can't visibly see and never will see.

"Also, it's not about having a better way or not. Science is good at what it does. Other things are good at what they do. If anyone is suggesting that we just pick one, call it best and ignore everything else, then that person is being shortsighted. "

It's not about having a better way? So there's nothing better about observing (and having multiple parties confirm observations) than, for example, praying to Allah for enlightenment? maybe listening to the voices in my head will lead me to the truth just as well as observations.

Maybe you can enlighten me about another method, I seem to be missing something. Perhaps I should be praying to Allah, it would be shortsighted of me not to, right?

I and I Wrote:Imagine there was a scientist that knew every thing there was to know about how the brain works at that time in the process of eye sight, and knew everything about how the eye worked during eye sight up to current science. What if this scientist was color blind, will or can this scientist ever "know" what the color red is? I say FUCK NO. Experience/phenomenology can't be reduced to smaller physical parts.

If you believe this scientist can "KNOW" what the color red is then explain how.

Well, come to think of it if he knew everything about how the brain and eyes worked he would just fix his lack of color perception. You know what else? I bet that scientist found out all about the brain and eyes by experimentation and observations, not sitting in a chair pondering "what is reality?".

I posted a link to his talk on fora tv pretty much explaining the views in the book.

What Deacon himself says in his book about life forms he claims can be said about consciousness. His explanation of consciousness however is philosophical considering other past philosophers have said very similar things hundreds of years ago.

If you watch the video I can explain how this scientists explanation of consciousness is an old one and this guys research may be a way to connect philosophy and science as far as explaining consciousness.